I am claiming that science and physical reality require faith from start to finish.

I do not agree that is true, even a little. But let's for a moment grant you that it is. So what? What is your point? That stupid, religious faith is equal to faith that reality is real?

Sorry, it's not. That requires faith that reality is real - which all of our senses point to and everyone has not choice but to take as a given - and it requires blind faith that god is in heaven and is good and loves us immeasurably despite our vile, disgusting, sinful nature. Blind, preposterous faith piled on top of reasonable faith, I'd say.

I am claiming that science and physical reality require faith from start to finish.

I do not agree that is true, even a little. But let's for a moment grant you that it is. So what? What is your point? That stupid, religious faith is equal to faith that reality is real?

Sorry, it's not. That requires faith that reality is real - which all of our senses point to and everyone has not choice but to take as a given - and it requires blind faith that god is in heaven and is good and loves us immeasurably despite our vile, disgusting, sinful nature. Blind, preposterous faith piled on top of reasonable faith, I'd say.

I completely agree that blind and preposterous faith can very often be harmful.

The difference between the two paradigms is whether consciousness is a subset of the physical world or the other way around. Both paradigms acknowledge and use the physical world.

P1 - The nature of reality is matter. Consciousness (if it exists at all) somehow emerges from matter.

P2 - The nature of reality is consciousness. One manifestation (subset) of consciousness is what we call the physical world (of matter, space and time).

Which has me asking, if P2 is the case, why don't you feel a need to use the word "somehow" with that conjecture? Is, in your opinion, the source of that consciousness a given? And if so, do you realize that your opinion might be conjured out of the consciousness that emerged from matter?

The difference between the two paradigms is whether consciousness is a subset of the physical world or the other way around. Both paradigms acknowledge and use the physical world.

P1 - The nature of reality is matter. Consciousness (if it exists at all) somehow emerges from matter.

P2 - The nature of reality is consciousness. One manifestation (subset) of consciousness is what we call the physical world (of matter, space and time).

Which has me asking, if P2 is the case, why don't you feel a need to use the word "somehow" with that conjecture? Is, in your opinion, the source of that consciousness a given? And if so, do you realize that your opinion might be conjured out of the consciousness that emerged from matter?

Without language to differentiate between 'things' (ie naming of experiences), there is just one single whole undifferentiated consciousness (the 'unity' of eastern philosophy). This is reflected by individuals experiencing a common objective (ie shared) 'world'. However, as individuals (by use of language to designate a separate self) we also strive for a personal and unique experience. This is reflected by our personal subjective experiences (emotions, feelings, desires, will, thought etc).

So what, exactly do you mean by an 'undifferentiated consciousness' and what might it be? How do individuals interact with it? Is it supposed to be, in effect, a god of some sort.

Yes, I'd like some clarification of this as well. How do "individuals" come to be in a "single whole undifferentiated consciousness"? In the physical paradigm, this is easily addressed. What is the explanation for the consciousness paradigm?

Analogy 1 - a microcosm

A human body can be thought of as a single unit (a whole) or as trillions of cells. We usually consider reality from the body's perspective but we could also attempt to understand reality from a cell's perspective. That reality would be very different.

In this analogy, undifferentiated consciousness is the body and separate individuals are the cells.

Analogy 2 - a macrocosm

A society can be thought of as a single unit (a whole) or as millions of people. We usually consider reality from the individual person's perspective but we can and do sometimes try and think from society's perspective.

In this analogy, undifferentiated consciousness is the society and separate individuals are the people.

Analogy one requires that individual cells have consciousness - is that what you are claiming?Analogy two is that society has a collective consciousness born from the accumulated indviduals - is that what you are claiming?

Because the paradigm you propose seems to be saying that there is consciousness at both levels - at that of the individual, AND at the "single whole undifferentiated consciousness": in the former by implication, in the latter specifically. So I ask again, how does that WORK?

I am claiming that science and physical reality require faith from start to finish.

Dominic,

Is your second language English? If it is, it will at least explain why it is that you do not know that the Churches use “faith” with one definition and normal people use it with another.

So please stop using faith as if you think others do not know the difference.

Faith, for the faithful godbotherer is blind acceptance of a god of some sort, be it Zeus, Woden, Vishnu or Huitzilopochtli. To the “faithful” i.e. those of faith, these gods are very real – they may not be to you, but they are to those of faith.

These gods direct the lives of their followers, i.e. those who have faith in them, and, usually, capriciously. The faithful have no proof of a god’s existence. They cannot “test for gods” They know that the effects of the gods are being eroded by knowledge of how things really work, yet they cling blindly to faith. Even when there is obviously evidence that contradicts their god, they deny it and,calling upon their faith, they say “my god is right.”

This is what the shamans or the priests of religion call “faith” – believing something when you know it ain’t true, but not only that, believing it when it can be shown to be untrue. For the religions of the world, faith is total and blind, faith asks no questions, faith, for the faithful, has all the answers.

Now, faith, when it comes to science and the real world means reasoned trust. It does not mean that science knows everything, because if science did know everything, it would stop. Science may never have all the answers, and I for one am proud of that - there is always more to know.

No, it means knowing that humans are working on problems and questions to the best of their ability for the benefit of mankind or a section of mankind. Each discovery they make is a step - no more than that – to a better understanding of the world and the universe and how it all fits together. Every discovery is backed by other discoveries, each of which has been shown to be true and can be repeated. every discover brings forth another question... and so it goes on.

If there ever becomes a point at which the whole foundation of science were shown to be wrong, science would openly change. Science has no blind allegiance.

I have already dismissed your “Ooo, we can’t know everything because it could always be an illusion.” which a normal person would see in the same light as you saying “Elvis is still alive”, This idea that “Science is based on sand and it is all an illusion and without evidence.” is so obviously wrong, that it can be dismissed without evidence.

Four hundred years ago, you might have gotten somewhere with it – you can’t escape with that sort of lax thought today. I am afraid that it is impossible to sit in a darkened room with no real information on a subject and yet come to a sound conclusion. No, you need to get out there and prove that what you think is correct and repeatable.

Have faith in science. There are very clever people out there who will do the work that you simply cannot.

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”